Yale's Comprehensive Sexual Misconduct Guide

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by LAblondeGPhi

To me, one of the most tragic circumstances would be a woman (or man) who truly feels violated sexually, and an alleged perpetrator who truly believed that the encounter was consensual. Parallel circumstances happen all the time in all kinds of other non-sexual instances. In such cases that go to court (or arbitration, or something similar), one has to start making judgements about what constitutes reasonable behavior/responses given certain situations.

Which is why affirmative consent is a good idea.

[squirrely girl]

Originally Posted by honorgal

On the contrary. It's the "college rape crisis" that is all over the place.

Likely because it's an issue of people and people are a bit complicated. That whole pesky human nature/individual differences thingy...

Originally Posted by honorgal

and all men are considered rapists unless they can prove they got consent.

Hyperbole much? Quite a growing body of research in the last decade has made very clear distinctions in the sense that a small minority of repeat offenders are responsible for the vast majority of the offenses.

Originally Posted by honorgal

If true, the sane response would be to reform the criminal justice system to lock up the rapists where they belong.

Except the part where we're also struggling with prison reform in society... and even victims don't always want to see the offender behind bars. I'm also getting the distinct impression that your issues with with the campus element would quickly transition to the cj system were that to happen. The bulk of your commentary, while applicable to campus issues, comes across as a far broader bias against victims than is warranted.

Originally Posted by honorgal

There is broad consensus in our society that rapists deserve jail time.

I would love to see some kind of citation or research support for such broad generalizations like this...

Originally Posted by honorgal

And yet, that solution is vehemently rejected by those using the term "crisis" (activists, administrators, the media and the federal government).

It is typically rejected because the system has a horrible track record of obtaining justice or actually punishing the offenders. Those statistics are widely available and simple to search for if you're interested in them.

Originally Posted by honorgal

It's only then that they start talking about "murky gray areas and the complexities".

Actually the whole "sex without consent is rape" thing has been around for a short minute.

Originally Posted by honorgal

We are also told that a victim must always remain in control of the aftermath, in deciding how or if to seek justice. But also that college administrations and law enforcement are absolutely the only ones to be held accountable for letting all these rapists escape punishment.

It's incoherent.

Only if you're completely disconnected from the idea of agency and autonomy. If a victim is pursuing the disciplinary process yet the admin and law enforcement stymie that, clearly the victim is not in control. If the victim is not interested in pursuing a disciplinary process, the admin can't just make consequences happen for something of which they are unaware.

Originally Posted by honorgal

The focus is on colleges simply because it's the easiest target, not because there actually IS a rape crisis.

Translated: All those bitches be lyin' so it's not real.

Just to be clear, having followed your posting on this topic in more than one thread now, I find your level of rape apology and victim blaming particularly loathsome and profoundly obnoxious. I cringe for whatever GLO took you on as a member and genuinely hope your level of influence on the lives of young people is grossly limited. Frankly, I'd respect you far more if you just came out and stated you just don't believe women when they say they've been raped and leave it at that. Rather, you hide behind your words and distraction in related issues and I find it both pathetic as well as morally and intellectually dishonest.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by LAblondeGPhi

This all sounds like a supporting argument for Low D Flat's statement - that there is room for genuine, not malicious, misunderstanding on the part of both parties.

I don't consider that the statement Low D Flat is making.

We already know that miscommunication and misunderstanding happen. That is why some of us dismiss Low D's and honorgal's attempt to apply their "silent consent" to everyone else.

[robinseggblue]

Originally Posted by squirrely girl

Translated: All those bitches be lyin' so it's not real.

Just to be clear, having followed your posting on this topic in more than one thread now, I find your level of rape apology and victim blaming particularly loathsome and profoundly obnoxious. I cringe for whatever GLO took you on as a member and genuinely hope your level of influence on the lives of young people is grossly limited. Frankly, I'd respect you far more if you just came out and stated you just don't believe women when they say they've been raped and leave it at that. Rather, you hide behind your words and distraction in related issues and I find it both pathetic as well as morally and intellectually dishonest.

ITA, glad someone said it.

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by squirrely girl

Likely because it's an issue of people and people are a bit complicated. That whole pesky human nature/individual differences thingy...



Hyperbole much? Quite a growing body of research in the last decade has made very clear distinctions in the sense that a small minority of repeat offenders are responsible for the vast majority of the offenses.

These two paragraphs are in conflict. But I am glad to see you are acknowledging this research. Of course, it then begs the question of how anyone logically thinks "affirmative consent" is going to prevent rape. As if these repeat offenders are going to ASK? It's about power, not sex.

Except the part where we're also struggling with prison reform in society... and even victims don't always want to see the offender behind bars. I'm also getting the distinct impression that your issues with with the campus element would quickly transition to the cj system were that to happen. The bulk of your commentary, while applicable to campus issues, comes across as a far broader bias against victims than is warranted.

I'm pretty sure I've been exclusively discussing the campus issues. And really, I'm just fighting fire with fire. When the activists stop lying, and obfuscating, and eliminating due process, I would hope a more reasonable and balanced approach would ensue.

Only if you're completely disconnected from the idea of agency and autonomy. If a victim is pursuing the disciplinary process yet the admin and law enforcement stymie that, clearly the victim is not in control. If the victim is not interested in pursuing a disciplinary process, the admin can't just make consequences happen for something of which they are unaware.

Actually, it would be great to have a discussion of this, but I won't hold my breath. I would love to know what, specifically, the UVA Administration should have done differently in this particular situation, when Jackie did not want anything done.

In reading numerous stories of disappointed and unhappy victims, and the activists and media decrying the way the college administration responds, I've come to the conclusion that the only thing that would satisfy the critics is if no victims were ever unhappy with the outcome of their cases.

Just to be clear, having followed your posting on this topic in more than one thread now, I find your level of rape apology and victim blaming particularly loathsome and profoundly obnoxious. I cringe for whatever GLO took you on as a member and genuinely hope your level of influence on the lives of young people is grossly limited. Frankly, I'd respect you far more if you just came out and stated you just don't believe women when they say they've been raped and leave it at that. Rather, you hide behind your words and distraction in related issues and I find it both pathetic as well as morally and intellectually dishonest.

Just to be clear, I find your personal attack rude and pathetic. I'm sure its been a strain the last few weeks, watching the story crumble and realizing that you are in the unenviable position of hoping and praying that the story is true, and that Jackie really did get brutally gang raped by seven men. Would not be a position I would want to be in.

ETA: My bias is not against any victim. My bias is against political ideology that has no principles and no regard for truth or facts.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by honorgal

Of course, it then begs the question of how anyone logically thinks "affirmative consent" is going to prevent rape. As if these repeat offenders are going to ASK? It's about power, not sex.

Then what on Earth have you been typing about for 99% of your posts?

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Then what on Earth have you been typing about for 99% of your posts?

Are you suggesting that I have I been arguing in favor of affirmative consent "laws"?

[1964Alum]

Originally Posted by robinseggblue

ITA, glad someone said it.

Honorgal is NOT a member of a GLO!

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by 1964Alum

Honorgal is NOT a member of a GLO!

And you know this how?

And more importantly, why would you care one way or another? Bizarre.

[1964Alum]

LOL! You posted earlier that you were not a member of a GLO but that your three children were! Enough said.

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by 1964Alum

LOL! You posted earlier that you were not a member of a GLO but that your three children were! Enough said.

Which post?

[squirrely girl]

Originally Posted by honorgal

Just to be clear, I find your personal attack rude and pathetic.

Kinda like the rather intense smearing of a gal you've never met? Or different? Just want to make sure I'm clear.

[squirrely girl]

Originally Posted by robinseggblue

ITA, glad someone said it.

Honestly, I'm surprised I'm the first. GC is rocking some kid gloves lately...

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by squirrely girl

Kinda like the rather intense smearing of a gal you've never met? Or different? Just want to make sure I'm clear.

No, you aren't clear at all. Are you referring to Jackie? Or something else.

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by squirrely girl

Honestly, I'm surprised I'm the first. GC is rocking some kid gloves lately...

So this is a group that is usually very intolerant of dissenting opinion?

I guess I'm not surprised.